'We Are Not Afraid To Decide The Matter" : Bombay High Court Asks Param Bir Singh To Withdraw Statements In Plea Filed In Supreme Court

After the Bombay High Court took exception to a paragraph in Ex-Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh's plea before theSupreme Court, where he alleged the HC did not hear him, Singh assured the court he would clarify his statement to the Supreme Court in an affidavit.

Singh also undertook not to pursue reliefs regarding the FIR under investigation by the Thane Police before the Supreme Court, after the State agreed not to arrest him in the said FIR till June 9, 2021.

On Monday, the vacation bench of Justices S S Shinde and N R Borkar was hearing Singh's petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him by Thane Police or transferring the case to the CBI for investigation.

During the hearing, State's counsel Senior Advocate Darius Khambata pointed out that despite being heard and granted protection after the State made a statement in the present petition on May 13, Singh misrepresented facts to the SC.

Singh claimed that his pleas before the Bombay HC were either not taken up or adjourned to a later date without giving him a chance to be heard, Khambata said.

The bench took exception to the Singh's claims and observed, "Please take it from us; we are not afraid of deciding the matter. Please don't give the impression (to the SC) that HC is not deciding," later adding, "Take steps to withdraw the statement. How can you say the matter was not heard and no orders were passed?"

Initially disagreeing with Khambata's submissions, counsels appearing for Singh - Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and Senior Advocate Puneet Bali - said Singh would amend the plea and file an affidavit in the Supreme Court, correcting the paragraph.

The Thane Police is investigating the case lodged by a subordinate officer, Police Inspector Bhimrao Ghadge, for various offences by Singh and 32 others under the SC/ST Act, Civil Rights Protection Act, Maharashtra Police Act and IPC.

On Monday, Jethmalani began his arguments by submitting that the Bombay HC has granted Singh relief on Friday. He requested the bench to club all the matters: Senior IPS officer Rashmi Shukla's petition, Param Bir's two quashing pleas and State's petition seeking to delete two paragraphs from CBI's FIR against Anil Deshmukh.

Khamabata objected to this and said that the bench led by Justice SJ Kathawalla granted relief only due to paucity of time, and the State refused to make a statement. Relief was not granted on merits, he added.

Justice Shinde pointed out that the bench was sitting in this particular combination only for a week, and since he would be heading the regular bench with the criminal assignment, he would prefer to hear the matter at one go.

"You'll should think about this," he said and added that all the parties could be heard at length after the vacation.

However, senior Advocate SS Talekar for the original complainant said that Singh's protection should not continue till then.

Khambata also pointed out that Singh sought a hearing before the SC last week without disclosing that the State had already made a statement not to arrest him. "This is a very serious matter," he added.

In response, Jethmalani said that all the action against Singh is vendetta driven because of the letter he wrote to the Chief Minister against then State HM Anil Deshmukh and others.

"It is very easy to say vendetta. One letter you write to the Chief Minister, and you want immunity in all FIRs," Khambata retorted.

Advocate Bali submitted that the reliefs being sought before the SC were different, as it encompassed all the action taken against Singh, including the departmental inquiries.

The bench noted that certain reliefs before the HC and SC did coincide. "I stand here with all responsibility. The reliefs are different in the SC," Bali asserted.

"Please take it from us we are not afraid of deciding the matter. Please don't give the impression (to the SC) that HC is not deciding," Jsutice Shinde said.

Khambata added, pointed out para 10 of Singh's SC petition, "Three days after I made the statement (in HC) that the State will not arrest him for a week, till I file a reply, they tell the SC he's not being heard."

In response, the bench said they would hear the matter today itself. "We will hear the matter. Please start arguing. Take steps to withdraw the statement. How can you say the matter was not heard and no orders were passed?"

Talekar said that what Singh was doing is nothing short of forum shopping.

Jethmalani then submitted that the SC petition would be amended and the incorrect statement would be withdrawn.

Meanwhile, the bench suggested that the matter could be taken up after the vacation and asked the State to take instructions on protection accordingly. "If there is a consensus, we can keep it on June 9 with all the compilations. But if you insist, we are ready to hear it today as well."

Submitting that Singh cannot ride two horses simultaneously, Khambata said he cannot pursue the case with the HC and the SC. "I have taken instructions, if they won't proceed with the SC petition till June 9, we will not arrest him."

However, since the protection was only regarding the present FIR, Jethmalani said Singh could be arrested in another case if he came to Mumbai for investigation. Jethmalani, however, assured the court that Singh would not seek reliefs before the Supreme Court in the present FIR.

The bench recorded Khambata and Jethmalani's statement and adjourned the matter to June 9.

"There is a consensus among the parties that the matter can be heard finally at the admission stage before the regular bench on June 9," the bench noted.